United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60767

Bertha Maria Maradiaga-Sandeal; Erick Daniel 

Ramires-Maradiaga; Yeri Josue Ramires-Maradiaga; 

Edwin Sady Ramirez-Maradiaga; Johan Danilo RamirezMaradiaga, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review from the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A206 783 021

Agency No. A206 783 022

Agency No. A206 783 023

Agency No. A206 783 024

Agency No. A206 783 025

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Wiener and Willett, Circuit 

Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60767 Document: 00516408912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2022
No. 20-60767

2

Per Curiam:*

Bertha Maria Maradiaga-Sandeal and her four children arrived in the 

United States without documentation. They applied for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their application and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal. Maradiaga-Sandeal did 

not contest several dispositive findings of the IJ at the BIA. We lack 

jurisdiction to review those findings and deny her petition.

I

The facts of this petition are generally not in dispute. MaradiagaSandeal and her four children fled Honduras after being kidnapped and 

extorted by gang members because the family had failed to pay a “war tax” 

demanded by the gang. One of her children had previously been kidnapped 

by gang members. The gang had cut off the child’s pinky finger and mailed 

it to the family with a note demanding payment of the war tax. The family 

was also threatened with death on several occasions when they failed to pay 

the gang.

Maradiaga-Sandeal and her children—as riders on her application—

arrived in the United States without documentation. They claimed to have 

been persecuted because of their political opinion and membership in a 

particular social group, which, on appeal, they identify as family members of

their father. The IJ determined that the gang’s various death threats, when 

combined with the kidnappings and mutilation of the child’s finger, 

amounted to persecution. The IJ denied relief, however, for several reasons. 

First, the IJ determined that the proposed particular social groups were not 

cognizable. Next, the IJ found that Maradiaga-Sandeal had failed to 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 20-60767 Document: 00516408912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2022
No. 20-60767

3

demonstrate a nexus between her harm and a protected ground; rather, the 

IJ found, she was harmed as a result of simple criminal extortion. The IJ also 

denied relief because Maradiaga-Sandeal had failed to establish that the 

Honduran government was unwilling or unable to assist her with the gang. 

Additionally, the IJ denied relief because Maradiaga-Sandeal had failed to 

establish that she was unable to relocate internally within Honduras. Finally, 

the IJ determined that Maradiaga-Sandeal was ineligible for relief under 

withholding of removal or CAT.

Maradiaga-Sandeal appealed to the BIA. She challenged only the IJ’s 

determination regarding her claim to be a member of a particular social group 

based on her kinship to a particular individual. She did not reference her

other proposed particular social groups or the claimed political opinion. She

made a single reference to the IJ’s findings regarding internal relocation and 

the Honduran government’s ability to assist her, but she did not cite caselaw 

or make any argument from the record as to why the IJ’s findings or 

conclusions were erroneous. The BIA dismissed Maradiaga-Sandeal’s 

appeal. The Board determined that her particular social group based on 

kinship was not cognizable under this court’s jurisprudence. Further, it 

determined that the harms she suffered were simple criminal extortion 

untethered to any protected ground. It also concluded that MaradiagaSandeal had waived any argument concerning internal relocation or the 

ability of the Honduran government to assist her because she had not 

appealed on either of those grounds. The BIA determined that she had 

forfeited any arguments for relief under CAT for the same reason.1

1 The BIA also addressed Maradiaga-Sandeal’s request for voluntary departure, 

stating that she had not appealed the IJ’s denial of that request. Nor does she challenge 

that denial in her petition for review. It is not before this court.

Case: 20-60767 Document: 00516408912 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2022
No. 20-60767

4

Before this court, Maradiaga-Sandeal repeated her challenge to the IJ

and BIA’s determination regarding the cognizability of her argument that 

she is a member of a particular social group based on kinship. She makes a 

single passing reference to the IJ’s determinations regarding internal 

relocation and the Honduran government’s ability to assist her. She did not 

make any argument concerning her eligibility for CAT relief.

II

We must first consider our jurisdiction. Generally, we do not have 

jurisdiction to review claims that petitioners have not first raised to the BIA.2 

The BIA held that Maradiaga-Sandeal had not appealed the IJ’s 

determinations regarding the possibility of internal relocation or the 

Honduran government’s willingness or ability to help her as they relate to her 

claim for asylum. It deemed those arguments forfeited. We therefore lack 

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determinations regarding internal relocation 

or the Honduran government’s ability to assist Maradiaga-Sandeal; for the 

same reason, we lack jurisdiction to review any arguments concerning relief 

under CAT and claims regarding other particular social groups and an 

alleged political opinion, which were not pursued before the BIA. Even if we 

had jurisdiction to review these claims, Maradiaga-Sandeal has failed to brief 

them adequately before our court. We would therefore deem them forfeited3

had she not abandoned them.

2 See, e.g., Ramos-Torres v. Holder, 637 F.3d 544, 547 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Failure to 

exhaust is a jurisdictional bar.” (quoting Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 317 (5th Cir. 

2010))); see also, e.g., Mirza v. Garland, 996 F.3d 747, 753 (5th Cir. 2021) (observing that 

“petitioners ‘fail to exhaust their administrative remedies as to an issue if they do not first 

raise the issue before the BIA, either on direct appeal or in a motion to reopen’” (quoting 

Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009))).

3 See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case: 20-60767 Document: 00516408912 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/27/2022
No. 20-60767

5

III

To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must prove that she is unwilling 

or unable to return to her home country “because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”4 An alien 

seeking withholding of removal must demonstrate a “clear probability of 

persecution” on one of the aforementioned grounds, which is a higher 

standard than the “well-founded fear of persecution” required for asylum.5

“An applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the 

applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the 

applicant’s country . . . .”6 Moreover, “in cases in which the 

persecutor . . . is a private actor, there shall be a presumption that internal 

relocation would be reasonable.”7

 Additionally, if the persecutors are not 

government actors, the applicant “must also establish that the authorities 

were ‘unable or unwilling to control’ [the persecutors].”8

Maradiaga-Sandeal does not contest that her persecutors were not 

government actors. She was required to prove that she could not relocate 

4 Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(42)(A)); accord 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1).

5 Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted).

6 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i) (“In cases in 

which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden 

of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate . . . .”); Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (“To establish a well-founded fear of future 

persecution, an alien must demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution, and that fear must 

be objectively reasonable.” (quoting Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005))).

7 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(iii).

8 Sanchez-Amador v. Garland, 30 F.4th 529, 533 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting 

Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006)).

Case: 20-60767 Document: 00516408912 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/27/2022
No. 20-60767

6

within Honduras, and she also had to prove that the Honduran government 

was unwilling or unable to control the persecutors.

9 The IJ made clear in her 

decision that she would have denied relief on those alternative grounds. 

Maradiaga-Sandeal failed to address these dispositive holdings before the 

BIA (or this court), so we lack jurisdiction to review them. The fact that we 

cannot review those elements of the IJ’s decision is dispositive of her appeal.

We do not reach Maradiaga-Sandeal’s claim for withholding of 

removal.

10 She did not raise a CAT claim before this court, but we would 

lack jurisdiction to review it if she had.

* * *

We lack jurisdiction to review dispositive portions of the IJ’s decision.

We DENY the petition for review.

9 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2), (3); Sanchez-Amador, 30 F.4th at 533.

10 See Sanchez-Amador, 30 F.4th at 531 n.1 (“[B]ecause [the petitioner] has not 

carried her burden as to asylum, she cannot be entitled to relief on withholding of removal 

grounds either.”).

Case: 20-60767 Document: 00516408912 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/27/2022